OBJECTIVE: To identify methods of tophus measurement for gout studies, summarise the properties of these methods and compile a detailed pictorial reference guide to demonstrate the methods. METHODS: A systematic search strategy for methods of tophus measurement was formulated. For each method, papers were assessed by two reviewers to summarise information according to the specific components of the Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) filter: feasibility, truth and discrimination. Detailed images were obtained to construct the reference guide. RESULTS: Eight methods of tophus measurement were identified: counting the total number of tophi, physical measurement using tape measure, physical measurement using Vernier callipers, digital photography, ultrasonography (US), MRI, CT and dual energy CT. Feasibility aspects of the methods are well documented. Physical measurement techniques are more feasible than advanced imaging methods, but do not allow for assessment of intra-articular tophi or for data storage and central reading. The truth aspect of the filter has been documented for many methods, particularly Vernier callipers, US, MRI and CT. Reliability of most methods has been reported as very good or excellent. Sensitivity to change has been reported for all methods except MRI and CT. CONCLUSION: A variety of methods of tophus assessment have been described for use in clinical trials of chronic gout. Physical measurement techniques (particularly the Vernier calliper method) and US measurement of tophus size appear to meet most aspects of the OMERACT filter.
OBJECTIVE: To identify methods of tophus measurement for gout studies, summarise the properties of these methods and compile a detailed pictorial reference guide to demonstrate the methods. METHODS: A systematic search strategy for methods of tophus measurement was formulated. For each method, papers were assessed by two reviewers to summarise information according to the specific components of the Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) filter: feasibility, truth and discrimination. Detailed images were obtained to construct the reference guide. RESULTS: Eight methods of tophus measurement were identified: counting the total number of tophi, physical measurement using tape measure, physical measurement using Vernier callipers, digital photography, ultrasonography (US), MRI, CT and dual energy CT. Feasibility aspects of the methods are well documented. Physical measurement techniques are more feasible than advanced imaging methods, but do not allow for assessment of intra-articular tophi or for data storage and central reading. The truth aspect of the filter has been documented for many methods, particularly Vernier callipers, US, MRI and CT. Reliability of most methods has been reported as very good or excellent. Sensitivity to change has been reported for all methods except MRI and CT. CONCLUSION: A variety of methods of tophus assessment have been described for use in clinical trials of chronic gout. Physical measurement techniques (particularly the Vernier calliper method) and US measurement of tophus size appear to meet most aspects of the OMERACT filter.
Authors: A-K Tausche; M Christoph; M Forkmann; U Richter; S Kopprasch; C Bielitz; M Aringer; C Wunderlich Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Nicola Dalbeth; Fiona M McQueen; Jasvinder A Singh; Patricia A MacDonald; N Lawrence Edwards; H Ralph Schumacher; Lee S Simon; Lisa K Stamp; Tuhina Neogi; Angelo L Gaffo; Puja P Khanna; Michael A Becker; William J Taylor Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; John D Fitzgerald; Puja P Khanna; Sangmee Bae; Manjit K Singh; Tuhina Neogi; Michael H Pillinger; Joan Merill; Susan Lee; Shraddha Prakash; Marian Kaldas; Maneesh Gogia; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Will Taylor; Frédéric Lioté; Hyon Choi; Jasvinder A Singh; Nicola Dalbeth; Sanford Kaplan; Vandana Niyyar; Danielle Jones; Steven A Yarows; Blake Roessler; Gail Kerr; Charles King; Gerald Levy; Daniel E Furst; N Lawrence Edwards; Brian Mandell; H Ralph Schumacher; Mark Robbins; Neil Wenger; Robert Terkeltaub Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Dodji V Modjinou; Svetlana Krasnokutsky; Soterios Gyftopoulos; Virginia C Pike; Elaine Karis; Robert T Keenan; Kristen Lee; Daria B Crittenden; Jonathan Samuels; Michael H Pillinger Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Alexander Huppertz; Kay-Geert A Hermann; Torsten Diekhoff; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Wolfgang A Schmidt Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Uyen-Sa D T Nguyen; Yuqing Zhang; Qiong Louie-Gao; Jingbo Niu; David T Felson; Michael P LaValley; Hyon K Choi Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.794